Althletic subsidy

[Dave in Green]

There absolutely should be a diversity of opinion on this subject, because there's a range of people from those who love sports to those who hate sports and everything in between.

Included in the in between are those like Spin who like sports but don't think so much money should be spent on them. That's as valid a position as anyone else has.

On the other hand, you have those who don't think UA spends enough money on sports. Over in the basketball forum someone was complaining that they wouldn't attend many basketball games at the JAR, not because they didn't like the Zips basketball team but because the bench seats are too uncomfortable. Comfy seats cost more money. But some sports fans demand to be pampered.

What you see in college sports is just an extension of pro sports. The old-timers among us can remember the days when professional athletes had other jobs in the off-season to make ends meet. Today's pro athletes are a bunch of pampered millionaires playing for billionaire owners. Some fans spend a small fortune on season tickets and team paraphernalia.

Some people on ZN.O argue in favor of paying college athletes on top of their free athletic scholarships.

There's no end to the money spigot when it comes to sports, yet here we are in the midst of the country's worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

When you put your love of sports aside and stand back and try to objectively look at the economic situation in modern sports, it's just plain nuts.

[g-mann17]

DiG, why is spending nuts? Because it comprises 10% of a school's budget, and half or more of that is from sources other than students?

The media runs these stories about "wasting tax dollars" but they never address that the school support is from tuition dollars not the small amount of state money. People like Spin are the people who are bitter. Look at him. Club sport, athlete mad that he pays for school while the football team goes for free. Never mind he wasn't good enough to earn his own scholarship.

There are over 200 schools competing at the D1 level. A whopping 10 of those turn a profit, another 10 of those are self sufficient the rest use student fees and tuition dollars to fund the programs. The bottom line is that sports drive all fundraising. If it didn't there wouldn't be 10000 thousand NCAA athletes and schools like Malone wouldn't have sports. We are FBS because the alumni and students want it. We will stay FBS because the majority want it. We can be successful and we will be successful.

[Dave in Green]

I'm talking about modern sports in general, not UA specifically.

The spending is nuts because so many of us are nuts about sports. The big spending is driven by the fans. As long as enough of us are willing to part with a big chunk of our money to support sports, sports will continue to suck up the cash and demand more. It's all about supply and demand. We're not just content to have sports teams. We demand winners. If our team isn't winning, we demand eating the coach's contract and popping more cash for a proven winning coach. If we can't attract top athletes and sell-out crowds due to poor facilities, we demand palaces.

It's a never-ending spiral. At some point it can get so crass that it's no longer fun for a lot of fans. Some of those fans might go to an amateur or minor league game at little or no cost and actually have fun. I think that's part of the point that Spin is making. You can have sports without spending big bucks. It's just that so many people today are hooked on the spectacle that big bucks bring to ordinary games that they consider anything less to be inferior and unsatisfying.

I'm not trying to make a value judgment here for anyone else. I'm just trying to point out that there are many ways to look at a situation, and not everyone should be expected to see it in exactly the same way.

[Doug Snyder]

I drove from California to Ohio and took the long and winding route. The goal was to see the US...my wife is Balinese and I wanted to show he the beauty of the US. What surprised me was how beautiful the bridges and public buildings were in some states...especially Madison Wisconsin. They were stunning. That made me think...why not make more beautiful bridges, buildings and more beautiful public parks?? If over 50% are not paying a dime for it...I am surprised there are not more areas like Madison (and others). Just vote for others to pay for things. For me...this is a cultural issue and is being fought out politically right now. How much should one expect and who should pay. We could have had this argument a few years ago and all agreed that it was a good thing to have universities subsidize athletes. But salaries have doubled in the last 10 years. Does that impact the decision we made before?? And what if salaries and costs double again?? My personal belief is that we place too much emphasis on playing sports for the sole purpose to be the best. Don't get me wrong...that attitude makes the US great...but it can get carried away. And in this case, I think it has. UofA students pay $1,240 per year just for sports subsidy (2 semesters). They really have no vote. I think things will change. Because when enough people get tired of paying for others without having a say in how things are spent...they leave or revolt. I am not the only person living outside the US and taking investment dollars with me. So…you could say I took G-Mann’s advice and left.

Understand that I have no problem with Alumni putting up money for athletics, arts or whatever. Building the Info with donated money is a good thing. My issue is with the "tax" students have to pay to subsidize college athletics. I think it is wrong. But G-Mann and others have a right to their opinion as well.

Having said all this...I really think the biggest problem is college football. If we eliminated football (not something I am proposing) we would cut the deficit by more than half. I think we would all be better off if there was a minor league for the NFL and college football was more about student athletes. Just my opinion...

I also want to apologize for the political references. Also…this is my opinion and not a reflection of how I feel about G-Mann…a poster who I highly respect….or any others.

[Spin]

People like Spin are the people who are bitter. Look at him. Club sport, athlete mad that he pays for school while the football team goes for free. Never mind he wasn't good enough to earn his own scholarship.

Why do you think I'm bitter? I simply made some observations. Just like I said, if you disagreed with an ICoach move, should I call you a football hater?

And why do you have to get all personal? You know nothing about me. It is true not many 45 year old grandfathers earn athletic scholarships, so that has nothing to do with my opinions (I do receive several program-related scholies). And you think you can look down on me because I watch a club sport (along with a half dozen sanctioned sports)??? You think you're better than I am because you couldn't possibly lower yourself to watch it? Who the hell do you think you are?

Look at him.

[Dave in Green]

Hey, Doug, no need to apologize for the political references. It's real easy to go back and edit all the political references out, which is a good practice for all sports forum members to learn so they don't have to apologize.

The subject of this thread is great for discussion. It's made me think about the cost of sports in general. But it's always hazardous to try to arrive at definitive conclusions based on incomplete data.

For example, it's entirely possible that the percentage of student tuition set aside for sports could actually result in reduced overall costs for students. That is, the percentage of tuition invested in sports may help generate more income and donations through sports than the amount invested.

To know if this were true, one would have to be able to analyze the books in detail and also get into people's minds to know if some donations to academic areas of UA were generated by well-to-do benefactors who were motivated to support the school in part due to enthusiasm generated by UA athletics.

In other words, if the portion of student tuition invested in sports were eliminated, would UA then need to raise the price of tuition to offset losses in other sources of income created by reduced investment in sports?

I can see both sides of the debate on whether UA students should have a portion of their tuition used to support sports. I just can't make a definitive conclusion based on the data I've seen to date.

So I hope this discussion can go on in a collaborative effort to learn more as opposed to belittling each other's contributions to the conversation.

[Doug Snyder]

Hey, Doug, no need to apologize for the political references. It's real easy to go back and edit all the political references out, which is a good practice for all sports forum members to learn so they don't have to apologize.

Sometimes it is better to apologize than to ask permission

I think it is hard to debate this issue without acknowledging the parallel debate going on in our society. So...I don't think I will edit it at this time. I just wanted to acknowledge the issue and not comment on it.

[Spin]

It's a never-ending spiral. At some point it can get so crass that it's no longer fun for a lot of fans. Some of those fans might go to an amateur or minor league game at little or no cost and actually have fun. I think that's part of the point that Spin is making. You can have sports without spending big bucks. It's just that so many people today are hooked on the spectacle that big bucks bring to ordinary games that they consider anything less to be inferior and unsatisfying.

I'm not trying to make a value judgment here for anyone else. I'm just trying to point out that there are many ways to look at a situation, and not everyone should be expected to see it in exactly the same way.

Sort of. You look at the attendance of the Indians since the days of contention, it tells the story. We sold out, what, 5 straight seasons before the season began? Now they can't give them away. Same with the Cavs, sold out every night during the LBJ era. If they play this year yo'll see a huge drop (it was high last year due to season tickets already being sold before LaDecision).

Meanwhile there will be some who will go no matter what. It's the major leagues. That's all that matters.

For example, it's entirely possible that the percentage of student tuition set aside for sports could actually result in reduced overall costs for students. That is, the percentage of tuition invested in sports may help generate more income and donations through sports than the amount invested.

That's always possible.

[johnnyzip84]

Another PD column on the business of college sports.

Porter's salary is discussed in detail, as is that of Miami's hockey coach.

Looking at the salaries of all in-state men's hoop coaches (state schools only), KD doesn't fair too badly at all.

And is iCoach's total compensation really 573K?!?!?

[Doug Snyder]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/foo...ts-database.htmThis data was from last year but it should still be relevant.

[K92]

RI musta had a hellacious incentive bonus for beating Buffalo in his contract.

[Doug Snyder]

RI musta had a hellacious incentive bonus for beating Buffalo in his contract.

Would love to see the bonus criteria. My guess is that there are some qualitative type of things. There were lots of issues with Brookharts recruits and cleaning up that had to be part of the incentive.Check out the staff... http://blogs.buffalonews.com/campus/2010/1...s-salaries.html

[johnnyzip84]

RI musta had a hellacious incentive bonus for beating Buffalo in his contract.

PD reporter dyslexia is the more likely culprit?

[GP1]

Reason ArticlePersonally, I don't care if they raise the taxes of everyone in Ohio to pay for Zips Athletics. History has shown, they have raised taxes for much more stupid things. That settles it, raise taxes 5% on everyone in Ohio to pay fo the Zips. Sounds like a great idea to me. Hell, go with 10%. Go Zips!!!

[ZippyRulz]

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index...pend_on_st.html

Watching these presidential debates (Dems), student indebtedness is becoming a political hot-button issue and there is talk of making all public universities tuition-free. If the Feds get involved in that way, I could see them mandating reductions of student-paid athletic subsidies which would choke off a lot of college sports, especially many football programs.

[Balsy]

Watching these presidential debates (Dems), student indebtedness is becoming a political hot-button issue and there is talk of making all public universities tuition-free. If the Feds get involved in that way, I could see them mandating reductions of student-paid athletic subsidies which would choke off a lot of college sports, especially many football programs.

It is a huge problem, of which a few candidates are looking to gain some political capital on. It's really a smart political choice because this will be the first election where Millennials are the majority of the voting block (Bernie Sanders' support is largely Millennials, very similar to Barak Obama's in '08). I'd imagine whoever the frontrunner in the Republican party will eventually be forced to develop a counter-plan that will reduce the cost of college. Millennials are not happy about having lots of debt and they want to be able to eventually buy homes.

I could see them mandating reductions, but I could also see them leaving open a giant sized loophole in student fees, but I hope they'd be smart enough to limit how much could be charged. I wonder how many people would be in favor of dropping a lot of college athletics in order to have near-free college?

[K92]

I wonder how many people would be in favor of dropping a lot of college athletics in order to have near-free college?

If that was the determining factor, I think there would probably only be about 30 schools still playing football.

[Balsy]

If that was the determining factor, I think there would probably only be about 30 schools still playing football.

If people really understood the cost of college athletics, I do believe that is correct. And since this is the athletic subsidy page, should they still be playing football? College athletics is very much a "don't mind the man behind the curtain" kind of thing.

[LZIp]

I'll have lost all remaining faith in my generation if a candidate is voted on because the voters truly believe they will bring free tuition.

[Balsy]

I'll have lost all remaining faith in my generation if a candidate is voted on because the voters truly believe they will bring free tuition.

And you shouldn't. US students currently hold $1.2ish trillion in college debt. It's becoming a bubble, that's going to pop Having fear because of free-tuition and voters that support it, is misplaced. Brazil, Germany, Finland, France, Norway, Slovenia and Sweden all have it. Scotland, the UK, Malta, Trinidad, Tobago have some form of it. It's not as simple as "our generation is voting for candidate x because they want free tuition"...more, they are voting for candidate X because they are one of the only candidates talking about a significant problem. Free tuition is a bit of a stretch, but if you want to make change you start from that frame and work backwards.

Our generation is acknowledging the problem and refusing to settle for it. Thats not something to lose faith it, but instead something to be inspired in.

[zippy5]

So when they forgive these 1.2 trillion dollars in loans? Then we're good? The banks that lent the money are gonna be okay?

[Balsy]

So when they forgive these 1.2 trillion dollars in loans? Then we're good? The banks that lent the money are gonna be okay?

Considering that none of the candidates in the 2016 election have suggested loan forgiveness, that comment contributes nothing to the discussion.

But on that note, The biggest student loaner is the Federal Government, not independent banks. Loan forgiveness is an interesting concept, because it frees up capital that can be reinvested in the economy in buying houses, cars, pets, furniture, shoes...etc. Loan forgiveness already exists in some forms, for those some public sector careers in areas of high need.

[zippy5]

Then what was the point of bringing up outstanding debt?

[Balsy]

Then what was the point of bringing up outstanding debt?

To illustrate that it's a huge problem that needs to be dealt with. A large amount of economic capital is being locked up in debt and servicing debt. That's not good for the economy, and it's a bubble waiting to pop.

[Z.I.P.]

To illustrate that it's a huge problem that needs to be dealt with. A large amount of economic capital is being locked up in debt and servicing debt. That's not good for the economy, and it's a bubble waiting to pop.

Speaking of bubbles, I highly encourage anyone who hasn't yet seen it to go watch The BigShort. Great filmmaking, from a SNL vet.